Wikipedia Mediation Cabal | |
---|---|
![]() | |
Article | DIY |
Status | Closed |
Request date | 12:03, 4 June 2011 (UTC) |
Requesting party | kencf0618 ( talk) |
Mediator(s) | User:Jeffwang |
Please place your signature here to indicate that you are aware of this mediation process and want to participate in it:
I have presented a counter-argument on the talk page of DIY as to whether the commercial punk DIY manufacture of fan regalia by the band One-Eyed Doll indeed serves as an encyclopaedic citation. The citation itself points to a segment of a rockumentary which details DIY manufacture and distribution (a punk business model alluded to in the article itself). The other two editors involved (including a Third Opinion) disagree that this is truly DIY, but as of this writing my rebuttal to their arguments has not been addressed.
My rebuttal hasn't been given due consideration. The crux of the matter is, I think, a matter of definition (of DIY), but inasmuch as this simply isn't being addressed by the other two parties currently involved, I would greatly appreciate some oversight by upper echelons.
I've presented a case, and it's just lying there, therefore further due process is necessary to put the matter to rest.
CASE CLOSED - As I cannot see any progress, I declare anything about this be removed until another case can be reopened. -- J (t) 14:19, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
My only involvement in the article was responding to kencf0618's request for a third opinion. Unfortunately, the opinion I gave was not the opinion that kencf0618 wanted, so they have now opened a MEDCAB case in the hope that somebody else will agree with them. Kencf0618 has accidentally forgotten to notify other parties to the mediation case; I'll fix that. bobrayner ( talk) 22:39, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
I won't be participating in this. I believe Kencf0618 has an undeclared conflict of interest here, but it would be violating WP:OUTING to say more than that. Delicious carbuncle ( talk) 02:47, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
@Kencf0618: You write above, regarding this image: And neither the painting nor the manipulation of the painting are mine, BTW; I just took the photograph.
If that is the case, then you are not the rights-holder to the artwork, and are not allowed to upload a photograph of it (which is a derivative work) to the Commons without the permission of the artist or copyright holder. Such permission needs to be made known to the OTRS people at Commons, who can guide you through the process involved. If you do not have the artist or copyright owner's permission, then you must request that the image be deleted from the Commons as a copyright violation. This goes for every other image you have uploaded, either here or on the Commons, for which you are not the rights holder. Uner certain circumstances such images may be allowed to be uploaded here under the "fair use" doctrine, but the Commons does not allow fair use uploads under any circumstances.
Please be certain to take case of this immediately, as the WMF takes copyright violations quite seriously. Beyond My Ken ( talk) 22:18, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
Is there any chance of further progress, or should this case be closed? bobrayner ( talk) 13:10, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
Wikipedia Mediation Cabal | |
---|---|
![]() | |
Article | DIY |
Status | Closed |
Request date | 12:03, 4 June 2011 (UTC) |
Requesting party | kencf0618 ( talk) |
Mediator(s) | User:Jeffwang |
Please place your signature here to indicate that you are aware of this mediation process and want to participate in it:
I have presented a counter-argument on the talk page of DIY as to whether the commercial punk DIY manufacture of fan regalia by the band One-Eyed Doll indeed serves as an encyclopaedic citation. The citation itself points to a segment of a rockumentary which details DIY manufacture and distribution (a punk business model alluded to in the article itself). The other two editors involved (including a Third Opinion) disagree that this is truly DIY, but as of this writing my rebuttal to their arguments has not been addressed.
My rebuttal hasn't been given due consideration. The crux of the matter is, I think, a matter of definition (of DIY), but inasmuch as this simply isn't being addressed by the other two parties currently involved, I would greatly appreciate some oversight by upper echelons.
I've presented a case, and it's just lying there, therefore further due process is necessary to put the matter to rest.
CASE CLOSED - As I cannot see any progress, I declare anything about this be removed until another case can be reopened. -- J (t) 14:19, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
My only involvement in the article was responding to kencf0618's request for a third opinion. Unfortunately, the opinion I gave was not the opinion that kencf0618 wanted, so they have now opened a MEDCAB case in the hope that somebody else will agree with them. Kencf0618 has accidentally forgotten to notify other parties to the mediation case; I'll fix that. bobrayner ( talk) 22:39, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
I won't be participating in this. I believe Kencf0618 has an undeclared conflict of interest here, but it would be violating WP:OUTING to say more than that. Delicious carbuncle ( talk) 02:47, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
@Kencf0618: You write above, regarding this image: And neither the painting nor the manipulation of the painting are mine, BTW; I just took the photograph.
If that is the case, then you are not the rights-holder to the artwork, and are not allowed to upload a photograph of it (which is a derivative work) to the Commons without the permission of the artist or copyright holder. Such permission needs to be made known to the OTRS people at Commons, who can guide you through the process involved. If you do not have the artist or copyright owner's permission, then you must request that the image be deleted from the Commons as a copyright violation. This goes for every other image you have uploaded, either here or on the Commons, for which you are not the rights holder. Uner certain circumstances such images may be allowed to be uploaded here under the "fair use" doctrine, but the Commons does not allow fair use uploads under any circumstances.
Please be certain to take case of this immediately, as the WMF takes copyright violations quite seriously. Beyond My Ken ( talk) 22:18, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
Is there any chance of further progress, or should this case be closed? bobrayner ( talk) 13:10, 17 June 2011 (UTC)